Dataset Information

Looking for more reliable biomarkers in breast cancer: Comparison between routine methods and RT-qPCR.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Decades of quality control efforts have raised the standards of immunohistochemistry (IHC), the principle method used for biomarker testing in breast cancer; however, computational pathology and reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) may also hold promise for additional substantial improvements.

Methods

Herein, we investigated discrepancies in the assessment of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and marker of proliferation Ki67 comparing routinely obtained IHC (and FISH) data (ORI) with the results of manual (REV) and semi-automated (DIA) re-evaluation of the original IHC slides and then with RNA expression data from the same tissue block using the MammaTyper® (MT) gene expression assay.

Results

Correlation for ER and PR was high between ORI IHC and the other three study methods (REV, DIA and RT-qPCR). For HER2, 10 out of 96 discrepant cases can be detected between ORI and REV that involved at least one call in the equivocal category (except for one case). For Ki67, 22 (29.1%) cases were categorized differently by either REV alone (n = 17), DIA alone (n = 15) or both (n = 10) and 28 cases (29.2%) for RT-qPCR. Most of the discrepant Ki67 cases changed from low to high between the original and following assessment and belonged to the intermediate Ki67 expression range (between 9 and 30%).

Conclusions

Determination of the breast cancer biomarkers ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 at the mRNA level shows high degree of correlation with IHC and compares well with correlations between original with subsequent independent manual or semi-automated IHC assessments. The use of methods with wider dynamic range and higher reproducibility such as RT-qPCR may offer more precise assessment of endocrine responsiveness, improve Ki67 standardization and help resolve HER2 cases that remain equivocal or ambiguous by IHC/FISH. In summary, our findings seem to configure RT-qPCR as a complementary method to be used in cases of either equivocal results or presenting, at the traditional determination assays, biomarkers expressions close to the cut-off values.

SUBMITTER: Caselli E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8460001 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSensitive, rapid, and accessible diagnostics continue to be critical to track the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RT-qPCR is the gold standard test, and comparison of methodologies and reagents, utilizing patient samples, is important to establish reliable diagnostic pipelines.MethodsHere, we assessed indirect methods that require RNA extraction with direct RT-qPCR on patient samples. Four different RNA extraction kits (Qiagen, Invitrogen, BGI and Norgen Biotek) were compared. For detection, we assessed two recently developed Taqman-based modules (BGI and Norgen Biotek), a SYBR green-based approach (NEB Luna Universal One-Step Kit) with published and newly-developed primers, and clinical results (Seegene STARMag RNA extraction system and Allplex 2019-nCoV RT-qPCR assay). We also tested and optimized direct, extraction-free detection using these RT-qPCR systems and performed a cost analysis of the different methods evaluated here.ResultsMost RNA isolation procedures performed similarly, and while all RT-qPCR modules effectively detected purified viral RNA, the BGI system provided overall superior performance (lower detection limit, lower Ct values and higher sensitivity), generating comparable results to original clinical diagnostic data, and identifying samples ranging from 65 copies to 2.1 × 105 copies of viral genome/μl. However, the BGI detection system is more expensive than other options tested here. With direct RT-qPCR, simply adding an RNase inhibitor greatly improved detection, without the need for any other treatments (e.g. lysis buffers or boiling). The best direct methods detected ~ 10 fold less virus than indirect methods, but this simplified approach reduced sample handling, as well as assay time and cost.ConclusionsWith extracted RNA, the BGI RT-qPCR detection system exhibited superior performance over the Norgen system, matching initial clinical diagnosis with the Seegene Allplex assay. The BGI system was also suitable for direct, extraction-free analysis, providing 78.4% sensitivity. The Norgen system, however, still accurately detected samples with a clinical Ct < 33 from extracted RNA, provided significant cost savings, and was superior to SYBR green assays that exhibited reduced specificity.

Project description:Background: Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are a new class of RNAs with medical significance. Compared to that of linear mRNA transcripts, the stability of circRNAs against degradation owing to their circular structure is considered advantageous for their use as biomarkers. As systematic studies on the stability of circRNAs depending on the RNA integrity, determined as RNA integrity number (RIN), in clinical tissue samples are lacking, we have investigated this aspect in the present study under model and clinical conditions. Methods: Total RNA isolated from kidney cancer tissue and cell lines (A-498 and HEK-293) with different RIN after thermal degradation was used in model experiments. Further, RNA isolated from kidney cancer and prostate cancer tissue collected under routine surgical conditions, representing clinical samples with RIN ranging from 2 to 9, were examined. Quantitative real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis of several circRNAs (circEGLN3, circRHOBTB3, circCSNK1G3, circRNA4, and circRNA9), their corresponding linear counterparts, tissue-specific reference genes, and three microRNAs (as controls) was performed. The quantification cycles were converted into relative quantities and normalized to the expression of specific reference genes for the corresponding tissue. The effect of RIN on the expression of different RNA entities was determined using linear regression analysis, and clinical samples were classified into two groups based on RIN greater or lesser than 6. Results: The results of model experiments and clinical sample analyses showed that all relative circRNA expression gradually decreased with reduction in RIN values. The adverse effect of RIN was partially compensated after normalizing the data and limiting the samples to only those with RIN values > 6. Conclusions: Our results suggested that circRNAs are not stable in clinical tissue samples, but are subjected to degradative processes similar to mRNAs. This has not been investigated extensively in circRNA expression studies, and hence must be considered in future for obtaining reliable circRNA expression data. This can be achieved by applying the principles commonly used in mRNA expression studies.